See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334509130

(MIS)MATCHED PERCEPTIONS: GRADUATES AND EMPLOYERS' VIEWS

ABOUT COMPETENCIES IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

Conference Paper · July 2019

DOI: 10.21125/edulearn.2019.2147

CITATIONS READS

0 54

3 authors, including:

Sílvia Correia Monteiro Leandro S. Almeida

University of Minho University of Minho
41 PUBLICATIONS   118 CITATIONS    483 PUBLICATIONS   3,630 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Learning outcomes in Portuguese Higher Education View project

Pragmatic Skills Assessment in Portuguese Children 18- to 47-months-old Using the Language Use Inventory View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sílvia Correia Monteiro on 17 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 (MIS)MATCHED PERCEPTIONS: GRADUATES AND EMPLOYERS’
VIEWS ABOUT COMPETENCIES IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Sílvia Monteiro1, Leandro Almeida1, Adela Garcia-Aracil2
1
Research Centre on Education, University of Minho (PORTUGAL)
2
INGENIO, CSIC-UPV, Polytechnic University of Valencia (PORTUGAL)

Abstract
The impact of globalization and rapid technological advancement drives to a new concept of working,
which encourages continuous competencies’ development, taking into account individuals’ interests,
personality and labour market opportunities. This new perspective implies, on one hand, high levels of
self-knowledge and, on the other hand, an in-depth knowledge of the needs of employers’
organizations. In the above context, this study aims to analyse the (mis)matches between the
perceptions of mastery and utilization of graduates’ competencies, taking graduates’ and employers’
perspectives. For such, three questions drive this study: How do graduates perceive their mastery and
utilization of their competencies during professional activities? How do employers perceive graduates’
mastery and utilization of their competencies? Are there mismatches among graduates and employers
taking mastery vs utilization of competencies?
A sample of 180 graduates from four study fields (Economics, Social Sciences, Law and from
Engineering) of a Portuguese public university participated in this study. From this group, 39
graduates reported to be unemployed, while 141 indicated to be employed at the moment of the
inquiry. Sixty percent of the participants were female and the average age of the group of graduates
was 24.89 (SD= 5.82). Ninety-eight employers were inquired, where 14% of them represented the
public sector and 86% the private one. Fifty-three percent of the employers represented small and
medium-size enterprises and 47% represented large-size companies. Data concerning graduates’
perceptions were collected through an online survey distributed by email, approximately 18 months
after completing their masters’ degree. Data concerning employers’ perceptions were also collected
through an online survey, distributed by email.
The obtained results allow us to conclude there is several mismatches among graduates and
employers’ perceptions. In general, graduates have higher perceptions of mastery for transversal
competencies than employers. However, in terms of technical competencies, employers consider
graduates more competent than graduates think they are. This suggests that employers are satisfied
in terms of the technical preparation of graduates, but not so satisfied in terms of transversal
competencies. Furthermore, employers generally attribute higher relevance of competencies for
professional practice than graduates do, with an implicit message that “everything is important”. This
might indicate some difficulty for employers to differentiate competencies in terms of relevance for
professional activities. Taking the mismatches perceived within groups, graduates reported
discrepancies for technical competencies (lower domain than professional requirement) and generic
competencies (higher domain than professional requirement), while employers consider graduates’
mastery of competencies are below professional requirement for all the transversal competencies
analysed.
The observed mismatches suggest the need to strengthen the relationship between HE institutions
and employers' organizations as a way to smooth graduates’ labour market transition. An example of
operationalization of this implication might be the inclusion of learning experiences integrated with
professional realities, as a way to foster technical and transversal competencies among students.
Keywords: competencies; graduates; employers; (mis)matches; work transition.

1 INTRODUCTION
Over the last few years, some debate has been installed around the responsibility of Higher Education
(HE) regarding graduates’ employability. In Europe, this debate was particularly boosted by the
Bologna process, which clearly defined the responsibility of the institutions to promote the
employability of graduates. In the Yerevan Communiqué (2015), ministers defined employability as
one out of four priorities for the period until 2018, and emphasized the “(…) need to ensure that, at the

Proceedings of EDULEARN19 Conference ISBN: 978-84-09-12031-4

8662
1st-3rd July 2019, Palma, Mallorca, Spain
end of each study cycle, graduates possess competences suitable for entry into the labour market
which also enable them to develop the new competences they may need for their employability later in
throughout their working lives” (p. 2). Thus, even if it can not to be unanimously perceived as its
exclusive function, this perspective of higher education as a privileged way to access to the labor
market leads to a political and scientific orientation commonly focused on matching competencies
developed in higher education with those required in the labour market.
Simultaneously, the impact of globalization and rapid technological advancement drives to a new
concept of working, which encourages continuous competencies’ development, taking individuals’
interests, personality and opportunities. This implies, on one hand, high levels of self-knowledge and,
on the other hand, an in-depth knowledge of employers’ needs. Current conceptualizations of
employability are in line with this dynamic between competencies developed, self-efficacy perceptions
and the ability to apply those competencies according with contextual demands at each moment [1],
[2]. Hence, an individual would be employable to “the extent that he or she can parlay person factors
effectively to negotiate environmental demands” [3, p. 16].
Several studies published in the last years around the mismatches of competencies derived from two
large European projects: REFLEX (Research into Employment and Professional Flexibility) and
CHEERS (Careers after Higher Education),(e.g., [4]–[6]). The overall results of these studies suggest
that graduates perceived themselves prepared for job, although the professional requirements tend to
be more demanding than the mastery of competencies. Other authors have conducted some other
studies more regionally circumscribed, focusing exclusively around graduates’ perceptions (e.g., [7])
or employers’ perceptions (e.g., [8]). Taking that employability conceptualizations assume an holistic
and integrative approach [3], [9], [10], and that mismatches between competencies acquired through
HE and required by the labour market may be one of the reasons of higher vulnerabilities in terms of
university-to-work transition [5], [11], empirical research integrating multiple perspectives from key
informants bring an added value to the field. In the above context, this study aims to analyse the
(mis)matches between the mastery and utilization of graduates’ competencies, taking graduates’ and
employers’ perspectives. For such, three questions drive this study: How do graduates perceive their
mastery and utilization of their competencies during professional activities? How do employers
perceive graduates’ mastery and utilization of their competencies? Are there mismatches among
graduates and employers taking mastery vs utilization of competencies?

2 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Participants
One hundred and eighty master graduates from four study fields (27% from Economics, 32% from
Social Sciences, 6% from Law and 34% from Engineering) from a Portuguese public university
participated in this study. From this group, 39 graduates reported to be unemployed, while 141
indicated to be employed at the moment of the inquiry. Sixty percent of the participants were female
and the average age of the group of graduates was 24.89 (SD= 5.82).
Ninety-eight employers were inquired, where 14% of them represented the public sector and 86% the
private one, and 53% of the employers represented small and medium-size enterprises and 47%
represented large-size companies. The economic activities represented were Agriculture (n=1),
Manufacturing (n=6), Facilities (n=16), ICT and Financial Services (n=21), Professional and
Administrative activities (n=17), Health and Social Security (n= 24) and Education (n=7). Six non-
responses were registered.

2.2 Procedure
Data concerning graduates’ perceptions were collected through an online survey distributed by email,
approximately 18 months after completing their masters’ degree. Data concerning employers’
perceptions were also collected through an online survey, distributed by email.

2.3 Measure
2.3.1 Perceptions of competencies
Participants were asked to evaluate graduates’ mastery and utilization of competencies during their
professional activity (in this latter case, only employed graduates were considered) in a 5-point Likert

8663
scale, ranging from 1 “very weak” to 5 “very strong”. Technical competencies were presented to the
participants as the technical training to perform a job; communication competencies refers to speaking
and writing clearly and effectively; methodological competencies concerns to the ability to use tools
and resources such as problem analysis, using information technologies or speaking a foreign
language; interpersonal competencies refers to the ability to work and interact with others, and to
lead, manage conflicts, work in a team and motivate others; participative competencies comprises
initiative, autonomy, self-motivation, decision making, identification of opportunities, innovation and
lifelong learning; organizational competencies concerns to the ability to organize tasks, to plan, collect
and process information and to be attentive to detail; socio-emotional competencies refers to the
ability to manage emotions and tolerate stress, self-confidence and self-control; and generic
competencies comprises general knowledge, sense of citizenship and ethical awareness.

3 RESULTS
Regarding the perceptions of mastery of competencies presented in Table 1, the results show that, for
the all competencies, graduates and employers scored higher the average point (2.5 values). Among
unemployed graduates, organizations’ competencies present the higher scores, while interpersonal
competencies are the most positively rated among employed graduates. In employers’ perspective,
the graduates are more proficient in technical competencies. The Sheffé post hoc tests demonstrated
that employers’ perceptions are significantly different from both groups of graduates for technical,
organization and interpersonal competencies (p = .000, for the two comparisons). In the case of
communication and participative competencies, the differences are solely present among employers
and employed graduates (p = .006 and p = .000, respectively). Concerning socioemotional
competencies, the differences emerged between employed and unemployed graduates (p = .016).

Table 1. Perceptions of mastery of competencies

Graduates
Employers
Unemployed Employed F p
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Technical 3.36 (.67) 3.53 (.78) 4.11 (.76) 23.992 .000
Communication 3.95 (.72) 4.05 (.71) 3.68 (.86) 5.363 .005
Methodological 3.67 (.62) 3.78 (.81) 3.72 (.71) .395 .674
Interpersonal 3.95 (.76) 4.09 (.71) 3.57 (.83) 12.166 .000
Participative 3.85 (.81) 4.05 (.72) 3.67 (.74) 8.194 .000
Organization 4.13 (.70) 4.08 (.66) 3.60 (.80) 14.967 .000
Socioemotional 3.49 (.85) 3.87 (.70) 3.77 (.72) 4.241 .015
Generic 3.90 (.82) 3.92 (.65) 3.80 (.64) .491 .612

Taking the perceptions of utilization of competencies presented in Table 2, and similarly to the
perceptions of mastery, the obtained results show that the three groups recognize the all
competencies as relevant for their professional activities (scores higher the average point of 2.5
values). Furthermore, it is evident that employers have higher perceptions of relevance of the all
competencies, with the exception of organization competencies, which was scored slightly higher by
graduates. Statistical differences between the two groups were significant for technical,
communication, methodological, socioemotional and generic competencies, with higher perceptions of
utilization by employers.

8664
 Table 2. Perceptions of utilization of competencies

Between Group
Perceptions of utilization of competencies
differences
Competencies
Graduates Employers
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) t p

Technical 3.28 (.97) 4.47 (.71) 10.372 .000

Communication 4.00 (.77) 4.21 (.70) 2.123 .035
Methodological 3.72 (.88) 4.09 (.72) 3.427 .001
Interpersonal 4.04 (.81) 4.01 (.82) .170 .865
Participative 4.01 (.75) 4.05 (.79) .402 .688
Organization 4.13 (.68) 4.04 (.75) .956 .340
Socioemotional 3.89 (.71) 4.20 (.67) 3.397 .001
Generic 3.70 (.79) 3.99 (.71) 2.857 .005

Taking the values of the difference between perceptions of mastery and utilization of competencies
presented in Table 3, it is possible to observe that the mismatch is more evident among graduates for
technical competencies, with a negative value, which indicate an apparent insufficient domain for this
competency, considering the level of requirement in professional activities. A significant and positive
difference is evident for generic competencies, which indicates that the level of domain exceed the
requirement in professional activities. Taking the employers’ group, the differences are significant for
the all competencies analysed, with the exception for technical competencies. In all the cases, the
differences present negative values, which means that employers consider that graduates’ mastery of
these competencies is below the level of requirement during professional activity in their
organizations.

Table 3. Differences between perceptions of mastery and utilization of competencies

Perceptions of mastery –
perceptions of utilization Graduates (employed) Employers
of competencies
Mean (SD) t p Mean (SD) t p
Technical .25 (.90) -5.429 .000 -.34 (.81) -.877 .382
Communication .04 (.62) .686 .494 -.51 (.88) -5.618 .000
Methodological .06 (.70) .956 .341 -.37 (.70) -5.127 .000
Interpersonal .05 (.54) 1,094 .276 -.44 (.78) -5.377 .000
Participative .04 (.60) .699 .486 -.39 (.70) -5.375 .000
Organization -.06 (.61) -1.239 .218 -.46 (.72) -6.160 .000
Socioemotional -.02 (.70) -.360 .719 -.43 (.67) -6.264 .000
Generic .21 (.71) 3.584 .000 -.16 (.57) -2.811 .006

4 CONCLUSIONS
The obtained results allow us to conclude there is several mismatches among graduates and
employers’ perceptions. In general, graduates have higher perceptions of mastery for transversal
competencies than employers. However, in terms of technical competencies, employers consider
graduates more competent than graduates think they are. This suggests that employers are satisfied
in terms of the technical preparation of graduates, but not so satisfied in terms of transversal
competencies. Furthermore, employers generally attribute higher relevance of competencies for
professional practice than graduates do, with an implicit message that “everything is important”. This

8665
 might indicate some difficulty for employers to differentiate competencies in terms of relevance for
professional activities. Taking the mismatches perceived within groups, graduates reported
discrepancies for technical competencies (lower domain than professional requirement) and generic
competencies (higher domain than professional requirement), while employers consider graduates’
mastery of competencies are below professional requirement for all the transversal competencies
analysed.

5 LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES

Data collected for this study takes circumscribed samples from different study fields, which prevents
any type of generalization of the data. Also, different measuring instruments are recommended for
competencies’ evaluation, such as ranking questionnaires, in order to avoid possible “overestimation
of competencies” that might occur in the case of employers.

6 PRATICAL IMPLICATIONS
The observed mismatches suggest the need to strengthen the relationship between HE institutions
and employers' organizations as a way to smooth graduates’ labour market transition. An example of
operationalization of this implication might be the inclusion of learning experiences integrated with
professional realities, as a way to foster technical and transversal competencies among students.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BPD/92331/2013]
and by CIEd – Research Centre on Education, project UID/CED/01661/2019, Institute of Education,
University of Minho, through national funds of FCT/MCTES-PT.

REFERENCES
[1] M. Yorke and P. Knight, Embedding employability into the curriculum. Learning and Employability
Series 1. York: Higher Education Academy., 2004.
[2] L. D. Pool and P. Sewell, “The key to employability: developing a practical model of graduate
employability,” Educ. + Train., vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 277–289, 2007.
[3] M. Fugate, A. J. Kinicki, and B. E. Ashforth, “Employability: A psycho-social construct, its
dimensions, and applications,” J. Vocat. Behav., vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 14–38, Aug. 2004.
[4] J. Allen and R. van der Velden, “The flexible professional in the knowledge society: General
Results of the REFLEX Project,” Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2011.
[5] A. Garcia-Aracil and R. van der Velden, “Competencies for young European higher education
graduates: Labor market mismatches and their payoffs,” High. Educ., vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 219–239,
2008.
[6] P. Teixeira, P. N. Teixeira, S. Cardoso, M. J. Rosa, and A. Magalhães, “Graduates’ Perceptions
about Labour Market Competencies: Does the Type of Institution and Programme Make a
Difference,” High. Educ. Policy, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 109–129, 2016.
[7] M. Jusoh, M. Simun, and S. Choy Chong, “Expectation gaps, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment of fresh graduates,” Educ. + Train., vol. 53, no. 6, pp. 515–530, Aug. 2011.
[8] S. McMurray and M. Dutton, “Employer demands from business graduates,” Educ. + Train., vol.
58, no. 1, pp. 112–132, 2016.
[9] L. Guilbert, J. L. Bernaud, B. Gouvernet, and J. Rossier, “Employability: review and research
prospects,” Int. J. Educ. Vocat. Guid., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 69–89, 2016.
[10] A. Forrier, M. Verbruggen, and N. De Cuyper, “Integrating different notions of employability in a
dynamic chain: The relationship between job transitions, movement capital and perceived
employability,” J. Vocat. Behav., vol. 89, pp. 56–64, Aug. 2015.
[11] M. Teijeiro, P. Rungo, and M. J. Freire, “Graduate competencies and employability: The impact of
matching firms’ needs and personal attainments,” Econ. Educ. Rev., vol. 34, pp. 286–295, 2013.

8666

View publication stats